American Optical Company, C'bon, Inc. And Cool-Ray, Inc. v. Rayex Corporation and Monaco Optical Corporation

394 F.2d 155, 157 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 465, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7175
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedApril 26, 1968
Docket447, Docket 31645
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 394 F.2d 155 (American Optical Company, C'bon, Inc. And Cool-Ray, Inc. v. Rayex Corporation and Monaco Optical Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Optical Company, C'bon, Inc. And Cool-Ray, Inc. v. Rayex Corporation and Monaco Optical Corporation, 394 F.2d 155, 157 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 465, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7175 (2d Cir. 1968).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles H. Tenney, J., entered May 23, 1967, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for contempt for failure • to comply with a preliminary injunction, and denied appellants’ cross-motion to vacate that injunction. The preliminary injunction in this action for unfair competition was granted by Judge Tenney on July 1, 1966, pursuant to his opinion reported at 266 F.Supp. 342 (S.D.N.Y.1966). Appellants took no appeal from that order. Instead of seeking to obtain “a trial of the action on the merits,” see Rule 65, Fed.R.Civ.P., appellants attempted four and one-half months later to have the preliminary injunction vacated despite their earlier failure to appeal. Appellants conceded at oral argument before us that their cross-motion to vacate the preliminary injunction was not based on changes in circumstances which occurred after the injunction was entered. It is clear that by their cross-motion appellants were merely trying to relitigate on a fuller record preliminary injunction issues already decided by Judge Tenney. We affirm *156 the judge’s refusal to vacate the injunction. As to the contempt, there was ample support for the judge’s finding that appellants’ “conduct has been in blatant disregard of the * * * preliminary injunction.” We will not further consider at this stage of the proceeding the validity of the underlying preliminary injunction from which appellants took no appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of New York v. Lopez
S.D. New York, 2025
JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman
S.D. New York, 2021
Centennial Broadcasting, LLC v. Burns
433 F. Supp. 2d 730 (W.D. Virginia, 2006)
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Reno
119 F.3d 1367 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Moore v. Miller
612 F. Supp. 952 (N.D. Illinois, 1985)
Kocher Coal Co. v. Marshall
505 F. Supp. 156 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1981)
Huk-A-Poo Sportswear, Inc. v. Little Lisa, Ltd.
74 F.R.D. 621 (S.D. New York, 1977)
CBS Inc. v. Springboard International Records
429 F. Supp. 563 (S.D. New York, 1976)
Andre Matenciot, Inc. v. David & Dash, Inc.
422 F. Supp. 1199 (S.D. New York, 1976)
Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
384 F. Supp. 507 (S.D. New York, 1974)
Spangler v. Pasadena City Board of Education
384 F. Supp. 846 (C.D. California, 1974)
Broadview Chemical Corporation v. Loctite Corporation
311 F. Supp. 447 (D. Connecticut, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
394 F.2d 155, 157 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 465, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-optical-company-cbon-inc-and-cool-ray-inc-v-rayex-ca2-1968.